There was a lot of media coverage back in February of this unusual story of a British teenage boy who’d taken his parents to court to try to get back home to London from Ghana. His parents had tricked him into visiting Ghana in early 2024 where they’d left him, against his wishes, in a boarding school. They had been worried about his recent violent behaviour and getting involved in criminal activity, including theft of phones and possession of knives. At the date of the latest hearing in October this year, his parents were still opposed to his applications to come back to the UK. They believe he is only safe in Ghana.
In the High Court, in S v F & Another[2025] EWHC 439 (Fam), Mr Justice Hayden had refused the boy’s application under the wardship jurisdiction for a return order to the UK. The judge had balanced the risks of harm likely to be caused to him in London and in Ghana. He said that the parents’ actions were within their lawful exercise of parental responsibility. However the Court of Appeal (Re S (Wardship: Removal to Ghana)[2025] EWCA Civ 1011) overturned that decision, saying the judge had not fully considered S’s own wishes and feelings and the psychological harm he was suffering from feeling stranded in Ghana. We wrote about the case in July: 14 year old boy taken to Ghana – Appeal judgment.
The case went back to the High Court before a different judge, Mrs Justice Theis. At this point, the boy had been living in Ghana since he was 13, for 19 months.
The new judgment – Re S (Wardship: Removal to Ghana rehearing) [2025] EWHC 2836 (Fam)
Mrs Justice Theis had the benefit of expert opinion from a psychologist, Dr Willemsen, who’d interviewed the boy four times, and an independent social worker, Mr Jeary, who’d spoken to the boy nine times. She had also had a half-hour conversation with him herself. She heard evidence from both parents. The father was visiting the son fairly regularly and they spoke almost daily; both parents were still fearful of the risks posed to him in London, especially the mother who said that he ‘could end up dead’.
The judgment goes into quite a bit of detail about the boy’s state of mind as described by his lawyers and the expert witnesses. Despite his Ghanaian heritage, he said he feels like a foreigner and that he was a burden, abandoned by his family. He wanted to come back to London, preferably in January 2026 or in the summer to begin Year 11 in school in September. There were proposals for the family (if the boy returned) to be supported by a local authority Family Assistance Order and an organisation called Be Heard As One (BHAO) which could make a risk assessment and action plan, working therapeutically with the family in a wrap-around service.
The judge said that the boy had started to show an ‘understanding of why his parents took the steps they did, his part in that, and the wider complexities in the family dynamics. The current situation is far from straightforward.’ She said that he’d developed some understanding and recognition of the risks he was exposed to in London, but that he’d not acknowledged the more serious aspects and he was still in contact with people who’d been involved in risky behaviour. Although she took the boy’s wishes and feelings very seriously, they could not be considered in isolation. If he did return to the UK in either January or summer 2026, this would still be against his parents’ wishes and therefore he wouldn’t be returning to settled family life. The parents and the judge put great weight on the boy’s completion of GCSEs, which would be disrupted if he moved from his current school.
The judge refused the application, but she hoped that the family could work together toward his returning at some point after his GCSE exams. She said:
During this hearing there has been informed agreement and understanding by S and his parents of the work that needs to be undertaken by them going forward, what is available and the local authority are aware of the situation the family is in. Family therapy is required and creative exploration is essential to ensure that can take place, possibly with the assistance of BHAO, in the circumstances this family are in. The information given during this hearing about BHAO was extremely useful, what they offer would be invaluable in supporting a solution to this difficult family situation. The local authority have a detailed knowledge of this family, have been very helpful and made clear they have the capacity, expertise and commitment to deliver the support and therapeutic input proposed within their own resources. The family need to proactively work together with the local authority to see how their specialist services (with or without BHAO) can best be utilised to provide the road map and plan to support S and the family for them to achieve what they all want, namely, for the family to be reunited. [para 70(4)]
Comment
An extremely unusual aspect of this case is that a 14 year old boy had the wherewithal to instruct his own lawyer to make applications from abroad to the High Court. Although ultimately unsuccessful, he’s had the benefit of very high quality legal representation and had his situation examined by at least six judges and a number of expert practitioners.
What’s much more usual though, is parents who worry about their children being drawn into crime, either through peer pressure or through child criminal exploitation, wherever they may live. Few have the resources to move their child to another part of the world. Parents who uproot their children to move to a different town or a boarding school in the UK wouldn’t experience judicial scrutiny of the effect on their child. Unlike the boy in the case of the boy who escaped from Somalia, the boy in Ghana is not in physical danger abroad. This decision was perhaps inevitable given how long he has been there, while his parents remain convinced he will come to harm in the UK.
Image: Photo of Black Star Square, Ghana – thanks – Ifeoluwa B. on Unsplash
We have a small favour to ask!
TEN YEARS A CHARITY
The Transparency Project is a registered charity in England and Wales run by volunteers who mostly also have full-time jobs. Although we’ve now been going for a decade, we’re always working to secure extra funding so that we can keep making family justice clearer for all who use the court and work in it.
We can’t do what we do without help from you!
We’d be really grateful if you were able to help us by making a small one-off (or regular!) donation through our Just Giving page